Passing vs. running. Which is more important?

[notwoz]

An interesting item in this morning's NY Times that tries to resolve the debate over whether passing is more important that running. Why Passing Is More Important Than Running in the N.F.L.

 

 

The author argues that in general, passing is more important than running and goes into a statistical analysis to support his position.

 

However, once he got to regressions and co-efficients, my eyes glazed over and I wandered off to the coffee machine for another cup of joe.

 

He does note that running successfully can be critically important near the goal line, where the short field makes passing very difficult. Running also helps ice games in which a team has a lead, but that implies you need to somehow gain the lead in the first place.

 

His conclusions:

Get a running back who’s good at picking up blitzes or catching the ball (Hmmm, does Thurman Thomas comes to mind? And can CJ Spiller learn to pick up blitzes?).

Never draft a running back in the first few rounds, and whatever you do, don’t waste precious cap space (or payroll budget) on him.

Get a quality QB at all costs.

Assess your linemen on how well they pass-block, and don’t worry as much about their run blocking.

Get lots of pass rushers on defense.

 

I probably agree with this guy more than not, but I'm not 100% sold. Regardless of whether he actually proves his theory, I hope it sparks some interesting give and take.

[bowery4]

In todays NFL the pass sets up the run, this may have been true since the advent of the no-huddle and all the pass happy rule changes. In fact you could see it last week in the first quarter when we tried run first and had to pass to soften it up. I don't think you need stats to back it up just look at the last 20 or so superbowls. So far as the line being good at pass blocking yeah that is a good truism in consideration of the first point.

 

Getting a high draft pick running back, well if you don't your team better be able to run block well.

A quality QB, check (another no brainer).

Pass rushers AND secondary IMO and LBs who are tough against the run.

 

One thing about all the 3/4s nowadays, if a team doesn't have good LBs you can run on them (as we are going to witness this year I am afraid).

The best teams are well balanced or if they are totally pass happy they can run when needed. And yeah the Bellichick school says you don't pay a lot for backs.

Sorry I didn't read the article because it is all basic truisms and I am not surprised Stats back it up.

 

I think that it is interesting that Chan and Nix seem to have a little different ideas (by their actions thus far), I hope that the thinking outside the box works with the young team they inherited.

Edited August 31, 2010 by bowery4

[BuffOrange]

Passing and it's not that close. Edited August 31, 2010 by BuffOrange

[Bob in STL]

Which is more important depends on your personnel.

 

Game plan to your players strength and your oppositions weaknesses, not to some preset formula.

[San-O]

If you look at the 2009 Division winners (8), and the top 8 passing teams in the league,

it seems fairly obvious: you must pass very well to win.

 

7 of the 8 top passing teams were also Division winners.

 

New England was # 3 and Buffalo was # 30. The Bills are not going to compete even within the

Division until they are a top 10 passing team in my opinion. Given the O-line and the QB situation,

this seems a long ways off.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PASSING_NET_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1

 

 

[Maddog69]

On a related note, which is more important food or water?

 

Both are vital. You cannot live without both just as you cannot be successful in the NFL without having a decent rushing game and passing game. Defenses will kill you if you are one dimensional, take the Bills of the last few years as an example.

[Kelly the Dog]

I would argue they are pretty much dead even, with the following caveats.

 

1] Debaters often confuse "running game" with "running backs". It's easier to say the passing game is more important, and use a lot of stats to prove it. BUT -- running backs are essential to the passing game, on screens, dump offs, and especially pass protection. So while good running games may be less important, good running backs are not. Look at the success that Manning has throwing to Addai and other backs, or even Brady and Faulk on third downs. Every QB needs protection from his backs or his passing game goes to crap.

 

2] Even MORE IMPORTANTLY, it's 10x easier to throw on first down when they think you are going to run or you have proven to run successfully (meaning have a good RB or run game) and 20x easier to throw on 2nd or 3rd and 4-5 instead of 2nd or 3rd and 8-10. Those couple yards that don't show up a lot in the stats are hugely important in the games.

 

3] Yardage is misleading. It's just as important if not more important to be able to pick up a 3rd or 4th and 1-2 on the ground as it is to pick up a 3rd and 6-7 in the air. The yardage is different but a run game, especially a good short yardage run game, is essential to keeping drives alive and scoring TDs in the red zone. Sure there are exceptions, but for the most part it holds true.

 

4] A lot of teams, especially the best passing teams and best quarterbacks like Manning and Brady, essentially use a lot of passing plays that are really running plays. Those 4-5 WR screens that Brady throws to Welker a game are no different than pitchouts. There is no worry of pass rush, sacks, interceptions, etc. It happens just as fast. It's not downfield. Sure, you can argue all you want about technically it's a pass but IMO it's replacing a running play with a overhand pitchout instead of an underhand pitchout, and distorts not only statistics but the argument that the passing game is more important than the running game.

[BuffOrange]

How many RB's actually run routes though instead of just being a safety valve? Since Thurman there's been Marshal Faulk and well, that's pretty much it. Joseph freaking Addai is insanely expendable. Hell he split time with Dominiq Rhodes the year they won it all.

[muffmonster]

On a related note, which is more important food or water?

 

Both are vital. You cannot live without both just as you cannot be successful in the NFL without having a decent rushing game and passing game. Defenses will kill you if you are one dimensional, take the Bills of the last few years as an example.

 

I can go with that if you look at water = passing and food = rushing. You can survive quite a long time without any food, but you can't go very long without water.

 

Yah rushing is necessary, but not nearly as much as passing. Look at the colts who were last in rushing but 2nd in passing. There is also the stats of the top 5 rushing teams last year only 2 made the playoffs.

[Kelly the Dog]

How many RB's actually run routes though instead of just being a safety valve? Since Thurman there's been Marshal Faulk and well, that's pretty much it. Joseph freaking Addai is insanely expendable. Hell he split time with Dominiq Rhodes the year they won it all.

And between them, in a one back offense, they had 1700 yards rushing, 13 TDs and 76 receptions.

[Captain Hindsight]

Just win Baby

[BuffOrange]

And between them, in a one back offense, they had 1700 yards rushing, 13 TDs and 76 receptions.

 

And that supports your "running backs > running game" argument (particularly as neither could hold Edge James' jock strap)?

Edited August 31, 2010 by BuffOrange

[Kelly the Dog]

And that supports your "running backs > running game" argument (particularly as neither could hold Edge James' jock strap)?

Yes. Because you need them, as evidenced by the production that both Addai and Rhodes got in that season and others. (You're right, neither of them could compare to James, but when he played, the Colts running game and running backs were better because he was better).

[HARCO186]

All this can be answered like this:

 

Last year Buffalo had a great pass defense and we still got our asses handed to us, why?? Because we had one of the worst run defenses. Teams ran all over us and our offense couldn't do anything to help matters.

 

Buffalo lost the super bowl to the giants and were doing great until the giants ran the same run play like 9 times in a row and we couldn't stop them, hence we lost because of time....

 

Great teams need the run to set up the pass... Steelers did it with a rookie named Big Ben. They ran like crazy and threw to keep teams honest.

2010 Bills will be running and throwing just to keep teams honest. When we burn them with a big throw, look and see if they don't have 8-9 in the box. Buffalo games will be low scoring because Chan will have us running as much as we can with little throws and one or two big shots down field.

 

Point is, set up the pass by the run. This has been that way for years.................

[BuffOrange]

Yes. Because you need them, as evidenced by the production that both Addai and Rhodes got in that season and others. (You're right, neither of them could compare to James, but when he played, the Colts running game and running backs were better because he was better).

 

I thought we were talking about what's important. I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. My point is the team hasn't suffered at all since their steep RB downgrade. I don't know how that points towards RB's being really important.

[Mickey]

If I had to choose, I'd rather be a good passing team than a good running team. I have watched so many Buffalo teams come and go, some that could run, some that could pass and the ones that could pass were the ones that were the best contenders. Running the ball can pile up yards and possession time but a game is played based on drives. Its not good enough to gain yards on average you have to gain yards on successive sets of downs to sustain a drive. Each down is a chance for something to go wrong. Most plays are not successful so the more plays you have to run to get to the EZ, the more likley it is that you are going to fail. Passing lets you gain yards in hunks so your drives consume fewer plays. I think that translates to more scoring drives.

 

The chief benefit of running well, supposedly, is time of posession. However, I personally think that TOP is one of the most overrated stats ever. The game is played using a series of alternating posessions. Each team gets just about as many posessions as the other. Sometimes that edges a possession or two one way or the other based on who has the ball at the end of the half and of the game but at most, one team is going to have only one or, rarely, two posessions more than the other team. Long drives shorten the game in that each team has fewer posessions but that cuts both ways. The team driving the ball will also get fewer posessions.

 

What TOP does do is make a difference in how rested your defense is. That can be important but hardly a goal worth sacrificing scoring TD's for. A long drive that scores a TD is great but mainly because of the 6 points, not because of the time it took to do it. Running clock when you have the lead or to score the go ahead pts while leaving your opponent no time to regain the lead are all worthy goals but you do that mainly by moving the chains.

 

All told, I would like to do both well but if I had to pick one to be better at than the other, I'd go with passing. In the modern game with LB's running 4.5 40's, sustained drives on the ground are just too hard and too rare. WR's are so protected by the pass interference rule that the game has evolved in their favor while the game has gone the otherway for RB's.

 

All this can be answered like this:

 

Last year Buffalo had a great pass defense and we still got our asses handed to us, why?? Because we had one of the worst run defenses. Teams ran all over us and our offense couldn't do anything to help matters.

 

Buffalo lost the super bowl to the giants and were doing great until the giants ran the same run play like 9 times in a row and we couldn't stop them, hence we lost because of time....

 

Great teams need the run to set up the pass... Steelers did it with a rookie named Big Ben. They ran like crazy and threw to keep teams honest.

2010 Bills will be running and throwing just to keep teams honest. When we burn them with a big throw, look and see if they don't have 8-9 in the box. Buffalo games will be low scoring because Chan will have us running as much as we can with little throws and one or two big shots down field.

 

Point is, set up the pass by the run. This has been that way for years.................

[Guest dog14787]

Which is more important depends on your personnel.

 

Game plan to your players strength and your oppositions weaknesses, not to some preset formula.

 

+1

 

The Buffalo Bills three headed beast rushing attack is our offenses biggest strength in my opinion and I expect Chan Gailey to take full advantage of the fire power he has at the RB position.

[Big Turk]

I would have to agree that you have to be able to pass to win games in the NFL. Look at all the teams recently that have been horrible rushing the ball but have had strong passing attacks. Many of them make the playoffs. New England, Indianapolis, and Arizona all immediately come to mind within the past few years. Now look at the teams that have had great rushing attacks, but poor passing games. Not too many of them make the playoffs, and when they do, they usually run into problems. The old saying that you need to run and stop the run, has been shown to not be true anymore, at least to a certain extent. Look at Minnesota before Favre. They were the best run defense and one of the best running teams, and because they had Tavares Jackson playing QB, they were not that good.

 

Its great when you are able to do both, but if you can only do one, you better be able to pass the ball. When you are behind late in games, you just can't run the ball because it eats up too much time. You have to be able to pick up big chunks of yardage quickly, and only the passing game can do that.

Edited August 31, 2010 by matter2003

[tennesseeboy]

Interesting...but when you have three potential all pro running backs, and two very surprisingly good backups, a question mark at quarterback and an offensive line that doesn't pass block well, running should definitely take precedence over passing. Also, you can eat up a lot of clock and keep your offense on the field with running plays (see how the Giants beat us in the first superbowl..our offense was on the field all of nineteen minutes). Throw in a new defensive scheme and something that keeps the offense on the field is time that the defense gets to rest, regroup and plan.

[Kelly the Dog]

I would have to agree that you have to be able to pass to win games in the NFL. Look at all the teams recently that have been horrible rushing the ball but have had strong passing attacks. Many of them make the playoffs. New England, Indianapolis, and Arizona all immediately come to mind within the past few years. Now look at the teams that have had great rushing attacks, but poor passing games. Not too many of them make the playoffs, and when they do, they usually run into problems. The old saying that you need to run and stop the run, has been shown to not be true anymore, at least to a certain extent. Look at Minnesota before Favre. They were the best run defense and one of the best running teams, and because they had Tavares Jackson playing QB, they were not that good.

 

Its great when you are able to do both, but if you can only do one, you better be able to pass the ball. When you are behind late in games, you just can't run the ball because it eats up too much time. You have to be able to pick up big chunks of yardage quickly, and only the passing game can do that.

Minnesota is a good example. Without Adrian Peterson, Favre would not be nearly as effective. Without Favre, they could run but they couldn't pass because their QB sucked. You need both.

 

It is a quarterback's league though, and passing has become more important over the last 5-10 years than it was before. That's almost inarguable. It's also inarguable to say you would rather have a good RB than a good QB, or that the RB position is as important as the QB position. That would be preposterous. But the running game, and the passing game, are pretty close if not equal. On some teams good teams one sets up the other. On others, one dominates but the other is still essential.

 

Right now, the Colts and the Saints look like the best offenses, with the Pats and Packers a notch below. Maybe the Cowboys. They are mostly passing teams, so it's easy to argue the passing game is more important in today's game. It just might not be such a wide margin.